Student perceptions of GenAI feedback functionalities diverged, with some finding them redundant when feedback was perceived as clear¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? While some students appreciated the GenAI functionalities, others found them redundant when they perceived the feedback as clear and easy to understand. → Jin 2025
Evidence¶
Jin 2025¶
Jin, F. J.-Y., Maheshi, B., Lai, W., Li, Y., Gasevic, D., Chen, G., Charwat, N., Chan, P. W. K., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Gašević, D., & Tsai, Y.-S. (2025). Students' Perceptions of Generative AI-Powered Learning Analytics in the Feedback Process: A Feedback Literacy Perspective. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), 152-168. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2025.8609
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Thematic analysis of student perceptions, triangulated with usage trace data, from the study's 18 participants across information technology, education, business and economics, and engineering. Students diverged: some "appreciated the GenAI functionalities", others "found them redundant".
"While some students appreciated the GenAI functionalities, others found them redundant when they perceived the feedback as clear and easy to understand."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- AI multimodal feedback is rated higher than educator feedback on specificity, clarity, simplicity, motivation, satisfaction, and lower mental effort, with comparable correctness, trust, and acceptance — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Students initially perceived GenAI explanation features and dashboard visualizations positively in introductory lab sessions — related
- K-12 students across five schools valued CyberScholar's detailed, specific, rubric-aligned feedback as helpful for identifying areas to revise — related
- Students showed only modest engagement with GenAI functionalities during in-semester use of the feedback tool — related
- In a five-teacher pilot in a 160-student introductory programming course, teachers valued rapid process-level insight and the pilot drove iterative usability improvements — related
- Middle school students engaged directly and positively with AI-generated rubric feedback, including conversing with the AI — reports the opposite
- Students value GenAI corrective feedback with rationales and report increased motivation and confidence — related
- Business Writing students valued AI feedback for higher-order and sentence-level comments but found it sometimes too general, while appreciating peers' contextual knowledge — related
- Students generally hold positive perceptions of the usefulness of self-assessment, but findings across studies are inconclusive — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
divergent-perceptions-genai-feedback-redundancy |
title |
Student perceptions of GenAI feedback functionalities diverged, with some finding them redundant when feedback was perceived as clear |
description |
Student perceptions of GenAI feedback functionalities diverged, with some finding them redundant when feedback was perceived as clear |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jin-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.